Good Morning AC and Belly,

I'm interested in learning more about Steve Bannon.
Especially his explanations on Trump - it has made
me curious to learn more.

Also I found the dialogue between Bannon and Sarah
Ferguson on the show - very well matched - and well worth
watching. Journalism at its best, I thought. She didn't let
him get away with anything - but he had all the answers
down pat. I imagine that he does his job well for Trump -
or for any organisation for which he works. He's a pro.
But then so's Sarah Ferguson. He almost (and I say almost)
had me wondering that perhaps I've been wrong about Trump
all along. And that's saying something. That's how good this
guy was.

If anybody thought that snippet of an interview was competent interviewing, well why should I suspect anything else coming as it did from the ABC Having done many hundreds of interviews over my career, constant interruption and other strategies to get your word or opinion in, was pathetic. Neither participants did themselves any credit, in my opinion.

It's basic common sense and good manners to allow your opposite number the right of reply, unless it's conducted under antagonistic conditions employed pursuant to lawful practices by police. We all know when arrested we're not obliged to say anything. However what can happen, after police have put certain questions in order to cover the criminal elements of the offence, often the accused person changes their minds, and elects to make a statement, which these days are recorded and videoed.

In the above instance it would've been nice if the ABC, had they pre-recorded the interview, asked him/her to take a breather and have a cup of tea, and recommence the interview, both agreeing not to interrupt the other.

Thank you ARMCHAIR CRITIC for the citation.

Well on me the interview had a totally different effect.
I thought that Steve Bannon did not allow Sarah Ferguson
to get away with anything. At one stage he even talked
over her - which was great. He was one tough charismatic
persona - and he knew exactly what he was doing. Plus he
was in control. He did not allow himself to be manipulated.
And this from a man who's been accused of being a "racist"
(there's that word again), an anti-Semite, and worse.

Fascinating viewing - in my opinion. And he came across in
a different light to what was expected. It made you think
which to me is a sign of a good interview. I had expected
to see a raving nutter - that's not what I got. What I saw
was a very charismatic individual.

Hi Foxy,
I thought it was a good interview and I agree with your thoughts on it, although I think Sarah probably had a assistance in the form of a headphone speaker in the ear she had covered.
She did badger him a little at times but he handled it pretty well.

That said, I know there's much more to Steve Bannon than what was explained in the interview.

Regarding Trump, you don't have to like him nor do you have to support him, but you should know that there is more to it all that what the media reports.

Hello AC,

I totally agree. I've become so interested as a result
of this particular interview that I've reserved books
on President Trump at my local library. I'd like to
learn more about the man. I also want to know more
about Steve Bannon.

It's also shown me the power that the media has on us.
It can influence our thinking. My family has been
telling me that for years.

Good for you Foxy,
I hope that you're able to find points of view that help you understand why many support Trump.
I don't care if you never support him yourself though, but I hope you become better able to see both sides.

I'm glad that 'Crossfire Hurricane' was mentioned in the interview, but I think the plan goes back much earlier than 2016 and Alexander Downers meeting with George Papadopolous.

See here, you only need watch the first minute.
http://youtu.be/y25mB7ZX6yY

I remember George saying that Downer had been compromised at some point.